city's administrative code that attempt to introduce positive improvements to the way technology is practiced around here. today we ask you as members of the board of supervisors if you're satisfied with the implementation of those changes you made to the role of city cio and the five year plan? are you satisfied that these changes are moving technology sufficiently forward within city government? if you are then things will stay the same around here. the office of the mayor accuses the civil grand jury of not knowing much about technology in the city. yes, we start friday scratch but we spent a year learning directly from the leaders within city government within technology units throughout the city. we had some help since two of our five member investigation team are seasoned technology professionals. we interviewed more than 40 employees and

elected officials, quite a few several times. we believed there was a good deal of candor in those interviews. not as much in the responses we're sorry to say. we did a great deal and discuss what we found with people in city government. we prepared findings and conclusions in the form of recommendations. every finding in our report was verified with additional interviews with the people providing that information. our report is factual, not fission. we believe. >> >> that city technology protects the status quo and at thes expense of cost savings and eliminating

unnecessary duplication and at the expense of inefficiencies and xengs of cooperation among units that can lead to additional improvements. today there is no apparent leadership within san francisco to make important city wide changes happen efficiently and effectively as the samples i have given show. there is no ekz organization structure that sorts out what changes to make or manages how to make them. coit and the city cio do not venture in that realm. if not them, whom? the mayor claims he -- innovation mayor or technology may or as his response to our report claims but that reflects his priority

and attracting tech companies to san francisco or having his staff work on apps that are helpful. he does little to improve the technology at home within his city government. the mayor has had hand on's experience as the execute administrative officer and the head of ddw. perhaps that experience has been him in the experience of this and i hope he considers technology an integral part of city operations that needs to and can be improved. that city technology is a significant priority for him and his staff. perhaps you, the board of supervisors, can help or it's deja vu all over again. you've had our report. rather than present each finding and recommendation, though each is important, and we stand by them, we believe it is best to

highlight just those items we find most significant in terms of organizational structure, the needs for easily accessible information and about hiring. first let's deal with structure the most important component to

level as the jury stated clearly in our report we recognize the importance of maintaining the ability to meet unique department needs with unique department solutions, and that should rest within those departments. that already exists. no changes is offered. what is missing is the means to provide for the other needs those related to city wide government programs. here coordination and communication are vital if costs and duplication are to be managed. this is the area that needs

fixing. the office of the mayor seems to believe what we're asking are a formal tie between the city cio and technology, leadership within departments for common city wide activities already exists as is stated in the response. has he or his staff really talked to the department -- really talked with department technology leadership or the city cio about this? we did. much more than one time and with much more than one person. it does not exist. the mayor's office says it exists not only in technology, but in such city wide services as finance, human resources and contracting. we would add capital planning and others. these are services the mayor states which are managed by the them and the central agency but that is not the case with technology as the may or's

office believes. they choose the candidates they want to hire but work under the policies of hr. they have people working on personnel managers but not in the way leaders perform the role independent of the city cio or td. departments spend money but make sure they don't ignore what the controller requires. there are people that work on budgets and spending but again not with the same independence and control as department technology leaders do and so on. departments expect to be guided by the controller with clear direction and evaluated with consequences for non complying. that's not what we found the expectations are for technology. that is pretty much what we're asking for technology on city wide related matters. it

doesn't exist now. the city cio doesn't have the authority of the controller rks the head of hr and so on. if he does he should be told because he doesn't act that way and departments don't view him that way. certainly the cio should have that authority for technology matters city wide to provide direction, coordination and communication. if the mayor thinks that the city cio should have that authority and already does he should check it out and make sure it's there and functioning. if he finds it's not there he should require it be done. it would make a world difference and that requires a strong capable cio as it does a controller or head of hr or purchasing or capital planning. beyond that the role of the city cio and the role of dt need to be separated into two positions. dt reporting to the city cio. the role of the city cio is to

create a clear vision for technology city wide, develop strategies with departments for new projects, and implementing what has been approved. he should be concerned with integrating and cord naided interdepartment activities. dt on the other hand focuses on daily operations that are shared throughout the city. combining these two roles causes confusion, particularly over the role city cio and in combination it's too much for one person to do properly. information -- pardon me for a moment. our report points out specific deficiency in how dat is gathered, organized and presented. one example is

reflected in budget reports. while budgets are made on a department by department basis there is not a complete agreement on certain definitions. for example, where does one budget for radio systems? not in technology. as a result the controller presented a city budget for technology of just under $200 million. through our interviews with technology leadership we were told that amount is under estimated by ten to 20% or more due to the differences of what to include. actual expenditures presented more difficult picture. some departments use non technology people to perform technology assignments and hiding the expenses outside of technology. actual cost of city wide projects are blurred as the examples shows. no one knows for sure how much is being spent, how much is being saved.

without comprehensive information there is no way to evaluate the success of ict city wide consolidations. we found no analysis where cost savings would come from from department to department or any of the consolidations. isn't there a reason to evaluate them on an ongoing basis? for that focused data is needed. it's not done now. either is a data base for personnel city wide and match needs with talent and ability. we don't do that because we don't look at technology as important city wide service. we propose the introduction of city wide annual report to the mayor and the board of supervisors. at the last meeting the mayor's

representative endorsed an idea like this. we applaud that. it needs to happen. we proposed a consolidated city wide budget and staffing plans, and if my slides work correctly, you can read that what your administrative code requires. it's not necessarily what is presented. without comprehensive information there is no way to evaluate the success of ict city wide consolidations. we found no real analysis to point where cost savings come from department to department for the city for any of the consolidations. isn't there is a need -- didn't i just do this? we propose a consolidated city wide ict budget and staffing plans. we propose a survey of ict performance from

departments that is updated periodically. we propose console daitd ict management asset system for these purposes. we propose a data base for personnel. maybe we have enough data but we're not collecting the right useful data. everyone agrees that hiring for technology needs to be improved. technology is a highly dynamic and ever changing field. no one can predict the five years of technology or what talent will be required. of your cell phone. the administrator requires a staffing plan. doesn't exist. there maybe hurdles to overcome but hiring as permanent exempt is better than the traditional

civil service for technology. it reduces time to hire. it raises proakt of attracting top talent. it means hiring mistakes can be corrected easily. it's done elsewhere in the city. lawyers and our attorney departments do have at will status for the same reasons as we find with technology. isn't it worth the effort to match talent with what is needed? culture is a mighty force. it provides comfort in it's traditions. it's a safe haven u because it's tried and accepted. it's reinforced because it's troublesome to change but culture all blinds to the other ways of doing things evening if the other ways hint of doing better. it stifles and shuts down i thinking. it

doesn't anticipate the unintended consequences of changing times. this grand jury is not the only voice that called more direct relationship between the city cio and budget leaders or a budget plan or urged reform to technology practices so they match the dynamic technology world, or any of the other recommendations in our report, but the way things are done around here is so embedded in san francisco government culture that the potential benefits to the san francisco community that have been raised, not just by us, are more than ignored. they are mocked by a city administration fearing change. we believe that only the mayor can make the changes that we and others have proposed. no one else has the direct authority over government operations than he has. he can do it if he is willing to put

the passionate leadership he puts in attracting tech business to the city and improving the organization and technology within san francisco government. perhaps we have to wait for a different administration for there to be a fair hearing on ways to improve technology. perhaps you, the board of supervisors, can take up this challenge. we hope you will. there was a better ending to our title report, deja vu all over again. that is "where there is a will there is a way .". thank you. >> thank you for the time and effort put into that report. any questions right now president chiu. all right. with that i would like to ask the mayor's office to come up. cindy is here representing the mayor's team with some responses and perhaps follow up questions. >> good afternoon supervisors.

i am cindy, deputy director of the marrow's budget office and here to speak to the reports. i am going to keep my response fairly brief and will answer any questions you have in the hearing. as you know ie.d t and innovation are among the mayor's top priority and shares in the task force and focusing on government efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness through innovation and it. since he's been in office he's pointed the first chief innovation officer and along with supervisor david chiu announced this position with strengths and open data legislation. the mayor recognizes that through technology we can better serve our citizens. we appreciate the civil grand jury's work on kreapting this report and interest in technology. however we disagree with several of the

assertions of the civil grand jury and believe their comments reflect incomplete understanding of how the it services work. the report doesn't recognize much of the recent progress made. we acknowledge there have been many frustrations in the past and in many cases those frustrations continue today. technology moves quickly. government doesn't always move as quickly. there are times and inherent tension between departments and central offices that arise when resources are limited. there is always room for improvement. however, we are encouraged by the recent progress and collaboration and are confident about the success of ongoing and future efforts. some examples of recent successes are two years ago we did produce the first ever five year ict plan. this year we will update that plan and working with coit, the cio, and

the controller's office on that report and open to feedback on how we can make it more useful to the board, departments, and to the public. the city email conversion project. i know that the civil grand jury points that as a failure or a ongoing frustration. i think we see some of the recent success and progress we're optimistic. right now 3600 users, 27 departments and some of the largest departments are slated for conversion in the next months and library is slated for conversion and additional 1300 accounts and others in january. our largest department with another 7100 accounts. data center consolidation and virtualization has been so successful that the scope has been expanded. initially the project was to convert or relocate 900 servers and 750

have been virtualized and 400 identified as candidates and 300 additional for relocation and total of 1400 servers, much larger than the originally scope of the project. this is also a sign of collaboration among the departments and one of the data center is housed at the airport and not in our department of technology. enterprise agreements have recently been completed with bm ware and adobe and projected to save the city money over the next few years and asset management and equipment maintenance should be completed within the next few months. i would also like to address some specific concerns that were raised in the civil grand jury report. one is the issue of hr and recruitment. we understand that there are many frustrations with the civil

service process and we hear this all the time, particularly as it results to it positions. however we are required by law to abide by the civil service process to ensure that hiring is non diskrom tory. we believe in some cases the stability offered by a civil service job can be an attracting recruiting feature. we agree that more flexibility is needed and that's why we asked human resources to see how we can make that possible. we don't believe a charter amendment is needed and we believe a solution can be found. we also do not believe that the role of the cio and the director of department of technology need to be separated. many departments -- the department head focuses on external issues and deputy

focuses on the day-to-day operations. we do not want an admin code to tie our hands with this decision. we want the flexibility to consider the individuals in these roles and their ability to determine the proper structure for the city and the department and these individuals. we also do not believe there needs on to be a formal reporting relationship. as with many central administrative functions like human resources or finance there is a central body with policy making authority and oversight along with departmental staff. we believe that this model can work, can and does work for technology. departmental staff have a responsibility to fulfill their department's mission while working within the policies and guidelines set by the central agency. staff around the city can and do communicate with

each other in format set scption like at coit meetings and other meetings and at monthly lunches and calling each other when they have questions. i think that's all of the sort of specific things i would like to address right now but we are able to answer questions later. i am here today with the cio, the chair of coit, the controller office and representatives from many departments so in conclusion of my statement i want to thank the civil grand jury for their work and interest in this area. however of the examples i discussed there is progress being made. we believe as departments, coit and cio learn from the experiences they of collaborating with each other future projects will benefit from the lessons learned in these last big projects there is a culture of

change that needs to be happening and we are doing it and we would rather work toward this than criticize them of the weaknesses. >> president chiu. >>i have a couple of questions and i want to acknowledge the progress that we have made in coit and throughout our situation in the city. we have made some progress when it comes to email. 3600 emails that you mentioned out of 26,000 of moved over. i want to single out the airport and their work on the data center. i am hoping that the first it project on time and on budget, and i also know that the project emerge made a lot of progress after the controller took over and i think that is worth celebrating as well as the two enterprise agreements you referred to. from my perspective it's not about the glass full or empty and it's

10% full. if you look at that we have 80% of the emails not moved over. we have a justice project 15 years behind, and over ten million dollars over budget. the fact that we have countless enterprise agreements still not different i think it's important to celebrate the progress, but from my perspective there are so many things that we have not been able to get done, and i wanted to ask you how is the administration looking at changing the overall culture? why should it take four years from zero percent to 20% email consolidation? should it take 15 years to consolidate the criminal justice data bases? should we have three departments and spending millions of dollars into and no one talks to each

other? when i attend coit meetings and one staffers with department heads and talking with or at each other it's not clear to me there is leadership that is on the same page and moving us forward and that really is the basic question i'm trying to get at. >> okay supervisor. i think that one of the things that we have seen in the most recent years with the downturn i think departments and the city were sort of shocked of working together more than they had in the past, so as we were talking about the culture that needs to be changing i think in some ways the recession forced the issue on departments and projects stalled before the recession are now moving forward and the email conversion and data consolidation. i think they're realizing through this collaboration they can gain access to projects and

technologies they wouldn't be able to have access to on their own, or be able to operate on their own, so i do believe that recently with this progress departments are learning, and are -- departments are learning and making progress and it takes time to build the relationships, but now they're being built and we're seeing success i believe it can only snow ball and accelerate from here so we are working hard with coit and the cio to make sure that continues to happen. the presence of kate howard at the coit meeting shouldn't be an indication that the mayor doesn't make this a priority. his scheduling conflicts and difficulties and you can understand yourself he can't be everywhere at once and the continued presence and stability offered by kate being at those meetings who also

negotiates department's budgets and looks at other cross city wide issue areas like capitol. she is able to provide the leadership that the mayor is looking for and i think you're looking for. >> and i certainly appreciate that. i think the challenge that i see is that you have a department of technology that should be coordinating more of the centralized functions and yet there doesn't seem clear direction to the departments that they need to cooperate and play ball, and i appreciate your point about how the recent budget challenges we had over the last years forced things. two concerns i have, as the budget picture improves, how do we make sure the pressure there is there to continue the cooperation and two, twr the grand jury report it's not clear there are the formal levels of communication and authority to ensure that decisions are going to be made and stuck to. i

mean for example at coit we had countless presentations on these projects you talked about: email consolidation and data centers and et cetera, and we set deadlines and budgets and every couple of months the deadlines are blown of the budgets have been blown as well, and it doesn't give me very much confidence that as a city we have a governance structure that actually works. it feels way too unwilding at this point and i understand the challenges of the mayor's schedule and all of our schedules and being present at these meetings but be sure there is clear directive and direction and accountability and every time we hear of a another schedule or budget slip or not met there isn't seem to be any